I get what you’re saying, totally. And it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with aspects of a “cause†while still supporting the people involved.
But (hah) that’s not really the point of the comic.
It’s when you feel the need to throw in your “but†after a statement of support that is at issue. It’s not the fact of being free to have objections to the pharmaceutical industry using animals that’s the problem in your example. It would be, in the context of this post, that you felt that your objection was tied to the right of trans people to exist with equal rights.
See, objection is to a completely separate issue. You can focus on reducing or eliminating the use of animals in medicine without tying it to the right of trans people to have access to gender affirming care. If your objection is to the animal issue, great, wonderful. That’s a separate conversation.
And I’m only using that example because it’s the one you used. It could be anything, any “butâ€.
Like, my little issue that intersects enough that it could be a but is allowing dedicated spaces. There are times and places where a branch of cis gendered experience is being shared, and someone that isn’t part of that group is going to be extraneous or possibly disruptive. Like, you don’t have a support group for men that survive testicular cancer and think it’s okay for a cis woman to show up. It’s okay to exclude women from that. It’s also okay to exclude anyone that hasn’t had testicular cancer, even if they have testicles. It’s also okay to exclude people that never had testicles at all, even if they’re men, regardless of being cis or trans.
That, however, is absolutely unnecessary to bring up when I say “I support trans peopleâ€. There’s no but there. The support is full stop. No buts. There’s zero need to drag that separate issue that just happens to intersect in a peripheral way with some segment of the trans population.
That’s what the comic is about, not blindly accepting things. What it comes down to is that if you think your “buts†are more important than supporting the rights of trans people, you aren’t really supporting them. And that’s what adding that “but†means. It’s saying that whatever your issue is is more important, that it overrides that struggle.
That’s it. The presence of the but in that statement indicates it isn’t true. And that would be the case for any “I support†statement.
I understand what you are saying. The issue is if someone were to say, using the example, “I don’t think we should use animal based hormones†without a qualifier they run the risk of having to fight off allegations of not supporting or discriminating against trans people when that clearly isn’t what they belive.
So they start with the qualifier. However now people claim that is disingenuous.
Honestly it’s something I’ve seen develop more and more over the years. People like to ignore all of the context of any given conversation.
Obviously if the qualifier is followed with something actually unsupportive you’re right, but based on the comic we’ll never get to know what that but was.
I tend to be the sort that if I voice something akin to this subject and it gets twisted into an allegation, I’m going to explain what I mean more fully, or determine if the person just has an axe to grind, or at least take the time to examine their take and see if I should change my thinking on a subject. If they just have an axe to grind, I’m out because I don’t have patience for zealots. If it was a misunderstanding, then it’s easy to fix. It is also entirely possible that someone could come up with something I hadn’t considered.
I’m old as fuck though. It makes me a bit more willing to listen than when I was younger and might have gotten het up over someone bringing up a tangent to a big issue. And, I’m also less willing to tolerate when someone is just looking for an argument by throwing an allegation and assuming the worst rather than just talking like a decent human being. I’m too old to argue with a zealot, so I just walk away. Even online, I have to be in a foul mood before I’ll give energy to someone that’s not acting in good faith with me as a fellow human being. In meat space, I have body language, tone and such to help make that determination, so I tend to walk away quicker (though often with an eye roll and some muttering about wasted time.)
Legit though, in the comic’s scenario, there would be nothing that could come after the “but†that would be germaine. Hypothetically, yeah, a person could be coming up with something that wasn’t going to negate the original statement. It just doesn’t work out that way when it comes to discussion of marginalized peoples. Like, since I first became aware of humans being shitty to groups of humans they don’t like, it’s a thing. Nobody ever throws out “I support gays, but…â€, or “black people deserve civil rights, but…†without following up with something that works against their previous statement.
Folks bringing up stuff like your example? They’re not going to say it the same way. “But†is used in a way that negates more often than not, and when it’s about supporting a marginalized group, I have never seen anyone throw a but without negating their supposed support. Worse, it’s fairly common in my experience that the “but†ends up being a dog whistle or outright bigoted.
Going back to the vegan example (and let me interject that this conversation has been really awesome, I love it when people engage the way you are), if someone says “but animal hormonesâ€, they’re effectively saying that their belief in appropriate manufacture of medical products is more important than the rights of trans people to access gender affirming care.
If they didn’t think that, they’d most likely, go with “and it sucks that trans people have reduced access to ethically sourced hormonesâ€. It’s a different way of thinking about a given issue. There’s ways to expand a conversation to include one’s related thoughts without using a negating conjunction. You know in role play and improv, there’s a guiding principle of “yes, and†instead of “yes, butâ€? It applies in this kind of situation, with the choice of but rather than and pointing to a less humorous situation.
Like, in running over this example, if I had an objection to the source of the hormones, my way of expressing it would come out “I support trans people. I really wish the pharmaceutical industry would support them in a way that reduces harm to animals as well. We can have both.†That’s the phrasing that came into my head when I put myself in that hypothetical vegan’s place.
It’s a different way of communication, it’s a different way of thinking.
The presence of the but in that statement indicates it isn’t true. And that would be the case for any “I support†statement.
To me it seems like the obvious point of prepending a support statement to a separate objection would be to clarify that what you mean by that objection is not broad hostility, if it seems people might confuse it for that otherwise. There’s better ways to word it (maybe split into multiple sentences), but I don’t think someone saying “but†necessarily is trying to convey that the thing they are objecting to competes with or outweighs their support.
With most things, I would tend to agree. It’s just that with marginalized groups, that “but†is only rarely going to be something that’s not just a dismissal of some part of the fundamental issues that make the group marginalized in the first place.
Not sure who has experienced what, but here in the south I have lost track of how many times I’ve heard things like “black people are great, but…†or “I don’t have anything against gays, but…â€
There’s a way of thinking behind buts when applied to this kind of matter that’s different from “I like shrimp, but…â€
People making that kind of statement disingenuously is definitely a negative trope for a reason, and because people are likely to interpret it in light of that trope it is bad etiquette. The reason it’s misused that way though is because it is one of the simplest ways to frame a statement of polite disagreement. If people not wanting to attack marginalized groups avoid saying it, that’s probably more because most of them have picked up on the etiquette rule rather than because the inherent meaning of such a statement is an attack.
That’s because IRL the context of “but†s doesn’t usually go like this when there’s a legitimate argument. The point of the comic is not blindly following trans people.
“I support trans people, but X†tends to have transphobic sentiment, even if X could be valid. In your example, many medicines are animal-derived or tested on animals. Focusing on addressing trans prople on this topic is usually a choice.
If you have these views, the context you would usually express them is not addressing trans people, but your message would probably be “I oppose people taking animal-derived medicines even if it improves their healthâ€.
Another simplified example. Let’s say there’s a grifter, scammer, scummy trans person, Alice. If you want to denounce Alice, you’d say “Alice is a scammer, xyz, don’t use her as positive trans representation†in a forum, discussion, post, etc. You’d probably not start with “I support trans people, but some of them are scammers like Aliceâ€. Imagine how weird that would sound with other minority or opressed groups (women, black, gay, etc).
By the way: I don’t know if you’re vegan, but most vegans don’t share your views on animal-derived or tested medicine (even the Vegan Society definition accepts these medicines). I’d suggest you find another term so you don’t misrepresent veganism, like “ethical†or “[strict] animal rights†beliefs. I don’t want to invalidate or debate your beliefs but calling it veganism is just not accurate.
Sorry did not want to make animals/vegans an issue, I was a vegan for a while but not anymore, not really my issue, I just wanted to make a shitty argument, not to try and denounce the logic of the comic but more to say there should not be bans on all viewpoints.
Honestly I agree with your point fully, I get what the comic was saying, there should not be conditions on support, but I do believe like stopping a conversation may not open the opportunity to help correct or inform someone (ok you won’t reach everyone and some are way too invested to learn and grow unfortunately).
And thank you for calling me out, my argument was wrong trying to assert one viewpoint into another, I promise I am not trying to be malicious or anything, also wasn’t trying to represent any vegans, sorry to all vegans that took offence, also did not try and force a misrepresentation onto them(I know some vegans that do have the viewpoint that animal-derived medicines are an issue but that is their own individual beliefs but that ). But it is as others said not my core of my idea, I think people should be open to having conversations to identify a possible shortcoming in beliefs and then be open to have that explained and hopefully grow.
Continue defending what is right and thank you for the long message to explain my argument’s shortcoming (sorry again for the shitty example) and thank you for engaging me.
I think this was actually what I was aiming to say, I think I used the wrong example, well kind of knew which is why I tried saying it was a shitty argument. But thank you for better articulating the core
Disliking one particular medicine used to treat gender dysphoria doesn’t mean you don’t support trans persons, and also isn’t something you’re likely to ever bring up except in nuanced and detailed discussions with people who also support them.
Would I be wrong to say (this is a damn shitty example so clearly wrong to make a point): I support trans rights, but I do not support their preference to use of animal-derived hormone replacement therapy instead of synthetic-derived, as it conflicts with my Vegan beliefs.
Yes, because you’ve moved the conversation away from one of support to a tangentially related topic that you wish to engage on. While occasionally, this can be a teachable moment or an honest discussion, more often than not, it is used to derail or poison the topic.
Agree that it can be used to poison the topic, and I feel that is great because like how you showed that I injected tangential belief and we can have a conversation. FYI I am not a vegan anymore, and I did not want to inject animal derived medication, I just quickly thought of an example. Sorry if I inserted this weird tangential issue, it was more about the absurdity of having absolutes in any statement. Thanks for showing up and correcting me, love it.
Honestly I support the trans movement, be as free to be who you are, and fuck anyone to say you have to be how they think you should be. And keep on defending others rights, I did not mean to attack anyone or try to poison the conversation, sorry if I actually did unintentionally, but I am glad I was called out and you gave me something to think about
I think the key thing is to have the conversations at the right time, in the right context. Like, the best way to avoid saying “I support trans rights but [valid tangential belief]†is to separate out those two clauses so that the valid tangential belief isn’t appearing to undermine one’s support for trans rights in general. Like, even rewriting the sentence so that it is two separate sentiments without the “but†can make a big difference.
A tangential analogy that comes to mind (and I want to emphasise that I don’t think your example comes anywhere close to this kind of behaviour) is when assholeish “Men’s Rights Activists†(MRA) will complain about feminists not caring about men’s suffering, but then be suspiciously quiet whenever feminists try to involve them in the conversation (I say this as a feminist who is passionate about understanding the ways that men also suffer under the patriarchy, and who has become a much more effective feminist through solidarity with men).
But then when a feminist (or any woman, really) starts to talk about things that has affected them as a woman (or someone perceived as a woman), then suddenly the MRAs will jump in to shout over whoever is speaking. It makes it blatantly obvious that they don’t actually give a fuck about men’s struggles, but just want to derail the conversation and suppress women’s voices.
Like I said above, this is a completely different scenario than the hypothetical you described, but they’re similar in that the more appropriate response in both cases is to show some grace and make sure we discuss our issues in the space and context that’s most appropriate. Like, if the phrase “I support trans rights†is being said, then the conversation is probably about broader issues, and is likely to involve some people who don’t support trans rights. Discussing issues like animal derived medication is probably more suited to an environment where everyone there is either trans, or a trans ally — and not just because of the harmful effects of the “I support trans rights but…†framing, but because if someone cares about whether people use animal derived medications, then the last thing one would want is for that point to be hijacked by anti-trans activists who don’t give a fuck about animal derived medications
Equal human rights is unconditional. There is no wiggle room. You either believe we should all have human rights or you don’t. No qualifiers. There is a line in the Sand. Good guys on one side and bad on the other.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if anything but total purity is rejected, then your side of the line in the sand is quite small in comparison to the other side.
I agree in theory that human rights are non-negotiable. But in practice, movements need popular support, and that support relies on compromises.
In my view, fascism is the unionization of all groups and individuals that a democratic society considers to be immoral. The harsher a society is in its moral judgements, the larger the “out group†becomes and thus fascism grows stronger. This is not a moral question, btw. It is a simple question of cause and effect. In a perfect world there would be no fence-sitters or bigots. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
But that’s not the line in the sand in the comic. In the comic, the line in the sand is people being uncertain about trans issues. This can just as easily stem from a lack of information or inherited values as it might stem from genuine bigotry.
Its referring to a real-world phenomenon where the large majority of cis people who claim they support trans people actively support policies intended to directly hurt trans people. Of course there’s nuances that can be had, but comics generally oversimplify and/or exaggerate for comedic effect and the intended message is still able to be conveyed to most people (probably you included; you probably are just being intentionally pedantic because you find it amusing to do so).
Also, I’d guess trans people are much much more likely to be vegan or veg*-spec than cis people, but I don’t have any data on that. If anything, “I support cis people, but why are so many of them carnists?†would make more sense. I know you say you aren’t vegan any more, so perhaps its not something you care about.
Removed by mod
I get what you’re saying, totally. And it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with aspects of a “cause†while still supporting the people involved.
But (hah) that’s not really the point of the comic.
It’s when you feel the need to throw in your “but†after a statement of support that is at issue. It’s not the fact of being free to have objections to the pharmaceutical industry using animals that’s the problem in your example. It would be, in the context of this post, that you felt that your objection was tied to the right of trans people to exist with equal rights.
See, objection is to a completely separate issue. You can focus on reducing or eliminating the use of animals in medicine without tying it to the right of trans people to have access to gender affirming care. If your objection is to the animal issue, great, wonderful. That’s a separate conversation.
And I’m only using that example because it’s the one you used. It could be anything, any “butâ€.
Like, my little issue that intersects enough that it could be a but is allowing dedicated spaces. There are times and places where a branch of cis gendered experience is being shared, and someone that isn’t part of that group is going to be extraneous or possibly disruptive. Like, you don’t have a support group for men that survive testicular cancer and think it’s okay for a cis woman to show up. It’s okay to exclude women from that. It’s also okay to exclude anyone that hasn’t had testicular cancer, even if they have testicles. It’s also okay to exclude people that never had testicles at all, even if they’re men, regardless of being cis or trans.
That, however, is absolutely unnecessary to bring up when I say “I support trans peopleâ€. There’s no but there. The support is full stop. No buts. There’s zero need to drag that separate issue that just happens to intersect in a peripheral way with some segment of the trans population.
That’s what the comic is about, not blindly accepting things. What it comes down to is that if you think your “buts†are more important than supporting the rights of trans people, you aren’t really supporting them. And that’s what adding that “but†means. It’s saying that whatever your issue is is more important, that it overrides that struggle.
That’s it. The presence of the but in that statement indicates it isn’t true. And that would be the case for any “I support†statement.
Excellent response
I understand what you are saying. The issue is if someone were to say, using the example, “I don’t think we should use animal based hormones†without a qualifier they run the risk of having to fight off allegations of not supporting or discriminating against trans people when that clearly isn’t what they belive.
So they start with the qualifier. However now people claim that is disingenuous.
Honestly it’s something I’ve seen develop more and more over the years. People like to ignore all of the context of any given conversation.
Obviously if the qualifier is followed with something actually unsupportive you’re right, but based on the comic we’ll never get to know what that but was.
I tend to be the sort that if I voice something akin to this subject and it gets twisted into an allegation, I’m going to explain what I mean more fully, or determine if the person just has an axe to grind, or at least take the time to examine their take and see if I should change my thinking on a subject. If they just have an axe to grind, I’m out because I don’t have patience for zealots. If it was a misunderstanding, then it’s easy to fix. It is also entirely possible that someone could come up with something I hadn’t considered.
I’m old as fuck though. It makes me a bit more willing to listen than when I was younger and might have gotten het up over someone bringing up a tangent to a big issue. And, I’m also less willing to tolerate when someone is just looking for an argument by throwing an allegation and assuming the worst rather than just talking like a decent human being. I’m too old to argue with a zealot, so I just walk away. Even online, I have to be in a foul mood before I’ll give energy to someone that’s not acting in good faith with me as a fellow human being. In meat space, I have body language, tone and such to help make that determination, so I tend to walk away quicker (though often with an eye roll and some muttering about wasted time.)
Legit though, in the comic’s scenario, there would be nothing that could come after the “but†that would be germaine. Hypothetically, yeah, a person could be coming up with something that wasn’t going to negate the original statement. It just doesn’t work out that way when it comes to discussion of marginalized peoples. Like, since I first became aware of humans being shitty to groups of humans they don’t like, it’s a thing. Nobody ever throws out “I support gays, but…â€, or “black people deserve civil rights, but…†without following up with something that works against their previous statement.
Folks bringing up stuff like your example? They’re not going to say it the same way. “But†is used in a way that negates more often than not, and when it’s about supporting a marginalized group, I have never seen anyone throw a but without negating their supposed support. Worse, it’s fairly common in my experience that the “but†ends up being a dog whistle or outright bigoted.
Going back to the vegan example (and let me interject that this conversation has been really awesome, I love it when people engage the way you are), if someone says “but animal hormonesâ€, they’re effectively saying that their belief in appropriate manufacture of medical products is more important than the rights of trans people to access gender affirming care.
If they didn’t think that, they’d most likely, go with “and it sucks that trans people have reduced access to ethically sourced hormonesâ€. It’s a different way of thinking about a given issue. There’s ways to expand a conversation to include one’s related thoughts without using a negating conjunction. You know in role play and improv, there’s a guiding principle of “yes, and†instead of “yes, butâ€? It applies in this kind of situation, with the choice of but rather than and pointing to a less humorous situation.
Like, in running over this example, if I had an objection to the source of the hormones, my way of expressing it would come out “I support trans people. I really wish the pharmaceutical industry would support them in a way that reduces harm to animals as well. We can have both.†That’s the phrasing that came into my head when I put myself in that hypothetical vegan’s place.
It’s a different way of communication, it’s a different way of thinking.
To me it seems like the obvious point of prepending a support statement to a separate objection would be to clarify that what you mean by that objection is not broad hostility, if it seems people might confuse it for that otherwise. There’s better ways to word it (maybe split into multiple sentences), but I don’t think someone saying “but†necessarily is trying to convey that the thing they are objecting to competes with or outweighs their support.
With most things, I would tend to agree. It’s just that with marginalized groups, that “but†is only rarely going to be something that’s not just a dismissal of some part of the fundamental issues that make the group marginalized in the first place.
Not sure who has experienced what, but here in the south I have lost track of how many times I’ve heard things like “black people are great, but…†or “I don’t have anything against gays, but…â€
There’s a way of thinking behind buts when applied to this kind of matter that’s different from “I like shrimp, but…â€
People making that kind of statement disingenuously is definitely a negative trope for a reason, and because people are likely to interpret it in light of that trope it is bad etiquette. The reason it’s misused that way though is because it is one of the simplest ways to frame a statement of polite disagreement. If people not wanting to attack marginalized groups avoid saying it, that’s probably more because most of them have picked up on the etiquette rule rather than because the inherent meaning of such a statement is an attack.
Very well put.
I felt it in my gut that “but†was wrong but I hadn’t sorted out exactly why yet, and you reasoned it out perfectly.
That’s because IRL the context of “but†s doesn’t usually go like this when there’s a legitimate argument. The point of the comic is not blindly following trans people.
“I support trans people, but X†tends to have transphobic sentiment, even if X could be valid. In your example, many medicines are animal-derived or tested on animals. Focusing on addressing trans prople on this topic is usually a choice.
If you have these views, the context you would usually express them is not addressing trans people, but your message would probably be “I oppose people taking animal-derived medicines even if it improves their healthâ€.
Another simplified example. Let’s say there’s a grifter, scammer, scummy trans person, Alice. If you want to denounce Alice, you’d say “Alice is a scammer, xyz, don’t use her as positive trans representation†in a forum, discussion, post, etc. You’d probably not start with “I support trans people, but some of them are scammers like Aliceâ€. Imagine how weird that would sound with other minority or opressed groups (women, black, gay, etc).
By the way: I don’t know if you’re vegan, but most vegans don’t share your views on animal-derived or tested medicine (even the Vegan Society definition accepts these medicines). I’d suggest you find another term so you don’t misrepresent veganism, like “ethical†or “[strict] animal rights†beliefs. I don’t want to invalidate or debate your beliefs but calling it veganism is just not accurate.
Exactly, this is in the manipulators playbook:
“I have nothing against X, but have you seen Y?!â€,
Y is very tangentially related to X, and should be addressed on its own, but is used to intentionally “smear†the bad reputation onto X.
These “buts†do not come from allies.
Sorry did not want to make animals/vegans an issue, I was a vegan for a while but not anymore, not really my issue, I just wanted to make a shitty argument, not to try and denounce the logic of the comic but more to say there should not be bans on all viewpoints.
Honestly I agree with your point fully, I get what the comic was saying, there should not be conditions on support, but I do believe like stopping a conversation may not open the opportunity to help correct or inform someone (ok you won’t reach everyone and some are way too invested to learn and grow unfortunately).
And thank you for calling me out, my argument was wrong trying to assert one viewpoint into another, I promise I am not trying to be malicious or anything, also wasn’t trying to represent any vegans, sorry to all vegans that took offence, also did not try and force a misrepresentation onto them(I know some vegans that do have the viewpoint that animal-derived medicines are an issue but that is their own individual beliefs but that ). But it is as others said not my core of my idea, I think people should be open to having conversations to identify a possible shortcoming in beliefs and then be open to have that explained and hopefully grow.
Continue defending what is right and thank you for the long message to explain my argument’s shortcoming (sorry again for the shitty example) and thank you for engaging me.
Absolutism is dangerous regardless of how “right†the argument is.
I think this was actually what I was aiming to say, I think I used the wrong example, well kind of knew which is why I tried saying it was a shitty argument. But thank you for better articulating the core
Disliking one particular medicine used to treat gender dysphoria doesn’t mean you don’t support trans persons, and also isn’t something you’re likely to ever bring up except in nuanced and detailed discussions with people who also support them.
Yes, because you’ve moved the conversation away from one of support to a tangentially related topic that you wish to engage on. While occasionally, this can be a teachable moment or an honest discussion, more often than not, it is used to derail or poison the topic.
Agree that it can be used to poison the topic, and I feel that is great because like how you showed that I injected tangential belief and we can have a conversation. FYI I am not a vegan anymore, and I did not want to inject animal derived medication, I just quickly thought of an example. Sorry if I inserted this weird tangential issue, it was more about the absurdity of having absolutes in any statement. Thanks for showing up and correcting me, love it.
Honestly I support the trans movement, be as free to be who you are, and fuck anyone to say you have to be how they think you should be. And keep on defending others rights, I did not mean to attack anyone or try to poison the conversation, sorry if I actually did unintentionally, but I am glad I was called out and you gave me something to think about
I think the key thing is to have the conversations at the right time, in the right context. Like, the best way to avoid saying “I support trans rights but [valid tangential belief]†is to separate out those two clauses so that the valid tangential belief isn’t appearing to undermine one’s support for trans rights in general. Like, even rewriting the sentence so that it is two separate sentiments without the “but†can make a big difference.
A tangential analogy that comes to mind (and I want to emphasise that I don’t think your example comes anywhere close to this kind of behaviour) is when assholeish “Men’s Rights Activists†(MRA) will complain about feminists not caring about men’s suffering, but then be suspiciously quiet whenever feminists try to involve them in the conversation (I say this as a feminist who is passionate about understanding the ways that men also suffer under the patriarchy, and who has become a much more effective feminist through solidarity with men).
But then when a feminist (or any woman, really) starts to talk about things that has affected them as a woman (or someone perceived as a woman), then suddenly the MRAs will jump in to shout over whoever is speaking. It makes it blatantly obvious that they don’t actually give a fuck about men’s struggles, but just want to derail the conversation and suppress women’s voices.
Like I said above, this is a completely different scenario than the hypothetical you described, but they’re similar in that the more appropriate response in both cases is to show some grace and make sure we discuss our issues in the space and context that’s most appropriate. Like, if the phrase “I support trans rights†is being said, then the conversation is probably about broader issues, and is likely to involve some people who don’t support trans rights. Discussing issues like animal derived medication is probably more suited to an environment where everyone there is either trans, or a trans ally — and not just because of the harmful effects of the “I support trans rights but…†framing, but because if someone cares about whether people use animal derived medications, then the last thing one would want is for that point to be hijacked by anti-trans activists who don’t give a fuck about animal derived medications
Equal human rights is unconditional. There is no wiggle room. You either believe we should all have human rights or you don’t. No qualifiers. There is a line in the Sand. Good guys on one side and bad on the other.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if anything but total purity is rejected, then your side of the line in the sand is quite small in comparison to the other side.
I agree in theory that human rights are non-negotiable. But in practice, movements need popular support, and that support relies on compromises.
In my view, fascism is the unionization of all groups and individuals that a democratic society considers to be immoral. The harsher a society is in its moral judgements, the larger the “out group†becomes and thus fascism grows stronger. This is not a moral question, btw. It is a simple question of cause and effect. In a perfect world there would be no fence-sitters or bigots. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
If the line in the sand is peoples right to live and express themselves freely then I am fine being a purist.
But that’s not the line in the sand in the comic. In the comic, the line in the sand is people being uncertain about trans issues. This can just as easily stem from a lack of information or inherited values as it might stem from genuine bigotry.
Its referring to a real-world phenomenon where the large majority of cis people who claim they support trans people actively support policies intended to directly hurt trans people. Of course there’s nuances that can be had, but comics generally oversimplify and/or exaggerate for comedic effect and the intended message is still able to be conveyed to most people (probably you included; you probably are just being intentionally pedantic because you find it amusing to do so).
Also, I’d guess trans people are much much more likely to be vegan or veg*-spec than cis people, but I don’t have any data on that. If anything, “I support cis people, but why are so many of them carnists?†would make more sense. I know you say you aren’t vegan any more, so perhaps its not something you care about.